Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, April
1996.

Introduction

Though the conservation and long-term management of archeological sites
is now generally accepted wisdom, it, wasn't always so. A traditional
bias toward excavation and the keeping of only basic site data has had
effects that linger on today. Historically, and to the detriment of
long-term site care, information has been collected with only fundamental
concerns such as location and interpretation in mind. Excavation was
favored over in-place conservation, under the assumption that the latter
was too complicated and expensive. But the true cost of excavation is
often more than anticipated, and often grows as the curation of objects
is projected into the future.

What should a resource manager know to compose an effective
long-term plan? It goes far beyond a site's age and location. What are
the environmental dynamics of the setting? What kind of ground cover
grows there? What is the soil type? Is damage being caused by vandals?
Cyclical inundation? Timber harvesting? Off-road vehicles? Jet-skis?

This brief addresses the care of archeological sites
over time, with accompanying forms to help in planning for a site's
future.

Toward Proactive
Management

In the last three decades, the management of
archeological resources has slowly shifted from solving site destruction
problems as they are discovered to actively identifying and managing
resources whether they are being damaged or not. More proactive treatment
of cultural resources does not necessarily signal a policy change on
the part of land managers. Rather, it may indicate that agencies charged
with stewardship are becoming increasingly aware of their mandated responsibilities.

Soon after the passage of the legislation that has proven
to be the driving force in resource management--the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979--numerous federal and state agencies
found that their cultural resource officers were trained neither in
archeology nor any of its allied disciplines. Many managers lacked an
understanding of their legislated responsibilities. Many were without
the professional staff needed to adequately manage archeological properties.
Some simply saw archeological resources as the bane of their existence
and only grudgingly committed funding and manpower to identify and protect
elements of our national heritage. Other managers, to their credit,
worked diligently to protect cultural resources even though they had
little understanding of what they were protecting. Site management was
only as effective as available expertise and funding allowed it to be.

During the 1970s, when an archeological site was endangered,
the most frequently considered management options were data recovery
or resource avoidance. Active resource conservation was undertaken only
in a few instances, even though it was a preferred mitigation choice
in the legislative and regulatory process. Avoidance was viewed as a
means of protecting a resource against an immediate adverse effect.
While the avoidance approach does constitute a form of conservation
that can address a primary impact, it may not consider secondary impacts.

There are a number of reasons why data recovery has
traditionally been the preferred option for archeologists:

Archeologists are generally trained to excavate sites,
not to conserve them.

Managers believe that the data contained in the site
is vitally important in answering research questions.

Few managers know about the variety of techniques
available to conserve archeological sites.

Managers think that conservation, in the long run,
is more expensive than recovery; perhaps the most important consideration
in determining whether a site would be excavated or conserved.

Traditionally trained archeologists are often unprepared
to provide alternatives for site conservation, which means that resource
managers have been forced to accept the recommendations from professionals
in other fields. As a consequence, most techniques for in-place conservation
have followed traditional engineering design. Such methods are most
effective in dynamic environments such as coastal shorelines, but they
are considerably more expensive than data recovery, particularly when
the cost of long-term maintenance is added. In less volatile environments,
other techniques can conserve a resource over a long period of time,
have a lower initial cost, and require only limited maintenance. Whatever
the case, long-term maintenance must be the cornerstone of a conservation
plan, regardless of the techniques chosen.

Cost ConsiderationsRecent changes in the regulatory process have
introduced new mandates that will require a careful comparison of long-term
conservation costs as opposed to excavation and curation. Budgeting
for excavation, analysis, and report preparation is almost routine,
but this is only part of the total project cost. To be truly accurate,
budgets should figure in the long-term expense of curation as now mandated.
The problem is, the full range of curatorial problems that can arise
from an excavation has not been identified, nor have the respective
costs. If the cost of curating any single class of artifacts under controlled
conditions is not known, no mitigation budget can be complete.

Stone tools, for example, require little care, but consider
wooden artifacts that have been in wet environments for hundreds or
thousands of years. Once removed, they will deteriorate rapidly unless
kept continually wet. Special treatment can slow and in some cases arrest
deterioration as these artifacts adjust to the curation environment.
But special treatment drives up excavation costs.

The non-artifactual portion of an excavation can contain
long-term costs as well. The useful life of electronic storage media
seems as yet unknown. Some estimates are as little as five years, which
raises the question of how often records and reports will have to be
replicated. Computers and programs tend to become outdated quickly.
Some data sets could conceivably become inaccessible unless the software
itself is curated. As curation becomes more demanding, the services
of curation facilities will most likely become more expensive.

A more recent cost that must be figured into any data
recovery program is compliance with the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act. Projects completed prior to NAGPRA approximated
the cost of compliance. However, compliance costs have not been accurately
documented. As these costs are documented, they will be added to project
budgets, and the cost of mitigation by excavation will rise accordingly.
In situ conservation of archeological remains (when possible and practical)
will eliminate much of the cost associated with mitigation.

Inadequacies of
Site DataAs amendments have strengthened cultural resource management
laws, agencies have gained experience in managing their resources. Proactive
treatment has also become more accepted. An increasing number of non-archeologists
are attending archeology management workshops sponsored by the National
Park Service, which discuss in situ conservation as well as excavation
and curation.

Most land-managing organizations now have either in-house
archeologists or contracts for archeological expertise. But while the
general management picture has changed dramatically over the last three
decades, the collection of baseline archeological data has not met these
agencies' management needs. This is not to imply that archeological
information was or is not available. Rather, it shows how the traditional
purposes for collecting this information are no longer adequate.

All states (and many federal agencies) maintain site
location files for the properties they manage. But the focus of most
state inventories has been primarily on answering questions as: Where
is the site located? When was it occupied? Is it eligible for the National
Register? Is it being damaged? By what, or by whom? This information
may be more than adequate for site interpretation, but not enough for
resource management. Inventories of federal land holdings have been
mandated, but have not yet been completed. Land managers must still
rely on site location data that was recorded 50 years ago, and data
currently being collected may not be adequate 50 years from now

At many land managing agencies, archeologists are becoming
increasingly office bound with dwindling knowledge of the resources
in their charge. They must rely on surveys to direct and support their
management efforts. In many cases, to supplement what data do exist,
an archeologist must return to the field to collect information for
a management plan. Ideally, the managing archeologist should be able
to complete that plan with information already in hand.

Archeological projects guided by a scope of services
usually call for the collecting of management-level information according
to professional guidelines. In many cases, however, the guidelines emphasize
anthropological value over management concerns.

Archeological sites tend to be dynamic natural settings,
since they would have provided the original inhabitants with access
to the greatest diversity of resources. Increasingly intense contemporary
land use has led to physiographic and topographic alterations that,
in turn, intensify the effects of naturally destructive processes. These
culturally derived forces affect not only the contents of archeological
sites, but their locations as well, and not always in ways that can
be anticipated.

Flooding of stream valleys is both expected and predictable.
The impact of the 1993 Mississippi flood on archeological resources
has not been fully assessed, but some of the results can be predicted.
Sites in the crevasses of the levee system are likely to be scoured
over their surfaces, with some of their deposits removed. Conversely,
sites in areas covered by slowly moving flood waters may have been covered
with a film of silts. In either case, the depositional environment of
the artifacts would be altered, and the long-term effects on the various
classes of artifacts within the site would be difficult to predict.

Post-flood data on the effects of hydraulic forces and
standing water can be useful in the future. Pre-flooding site location
data may not be sufficient as the basis for assessing impacts.

Improving the Information
BaseMost survey projects are recorded in field notes and
on various forms. But it is the forms rather than the field notes that
usually serve as documentation when devising a management plan for a
threatened site. These forms contain an attenuated version of the information
from the original field notes, but as noted earlier, this information
is usually intended for site location, chronology, and interpretive
use, not for management. Therefore, field archeologists should collect
more information than usual during their surveys. Having to go back
and reassess a site only adds to the cost of management.

The two sample forms in this brief have been devised
to encourage the collection of basic management data. They are presented
in two formats. While they may not meet all of the needs of every management
agency, they can serve as a model for creating appropriate forms. Managers
may add or delete classes of data according to their needs.

To abate the protest that will follow the suggestion
for more paperwork, every effort has been made to ensure that the information
in the recommended data set is necessary for the management of an archeological
property. An alternative to the creation of additional forms would be
to incorporate some or all of the suggested data categories into existing
data collection systems.